Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

871–880 of 1001 posts

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#871

Post by Chris2048 »

issa wrote: post #698

I've seen a lot of this argument going back and forth on the concept of "how it would feel to be a diversity hire" or "if more qualified candidates aren't getting the job". This ENTIRE line of thinking misses the point of diversity programs. The purpose is long-term--to make it so that at some point in the future you don't NEED a diversity program anymore. And that's why they are critical.

What is the "target" amount of diversity? What is it for coal mines? Given all the diversity & inclusion roles, are you really suggesting these initiatives are intended to go away at some point in the future?

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#872

Post by pgsandstrom »

peoplewindow wrote: post #860
nyxtom wrote: post #843

You know, I actually thought Sundar's response to this whole thing was actually quite on point. He addresses the issue of needing to be able to discuss points in the memo that are open to discussion (such as the effectiveness of a policy and how to make things more inclusive for all); and at the same time addresses the hostile work environment that was produced as a result of the surrounding context. It sounds like m…

> They too feel under threat, and that is also not OK. People must feel free to express dissent Yet he fired the guy. Ultimately he had to pick a side: freedom of speech or women who got upset by a bunch of links to scientific studies with a pile of social and cultural commentary on top. He picked the latter.

Freedom of speech has nothing to do with keeping your employment when you start infected political discourse at your work.

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#873

Post by jorgemf »

zouhair wrote: post #642
jorgemf wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If gender-based diversity programs are responsible for qualified women getting jobs that they otherwise wouldn't have gotten due to bias, then the lack of that program means those women wouldn't have gotten those jobs. This is a double sword thing. With the program you might hire more qualified women, but also more less qualified women and you might prevent of hiring more qualified men. Because you have to hire wom…

>If I were I woman (or belong to minority) I would prefer to be being hired without any diversity program. Only someone who is not a woman or not from a minority could say this. People tend to dismiss other peoples problem or minimize them, even when those people are telling they are hurting.

You have prejudices about me. I have faced discrimination in another areas of my life. So I think I can have an opinion about it. I have also talked with woman that think the same as me.

Are you discriminating me to give an opinion because I am a male? I don't think it is fair. I could also say that you shouldn't talk about gender equality if you don't live in a country with high gender equality and so you argument doesn't add any value with the discussion.

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#874

Post by leroy_masochist »

tunesmith wrote: post #123

People can't seem to summarize his argument without getting much of it grossly wrong, because his manifesto was a haphazard collection of good points, bad points, good arguments, lousy arguments, misrepresentations of others' views, and unstated implications. A perfect recipe for people to argue past each other about it. It's worth remembering that one of his conclusions was to end or replace gender-based diversity p…

I'm a veteran whose hiring through 2/4 jobs in the last 10 years has been through a distinct veteran recruiting pipeline. In the other two, my veteran status was likely a factor as well.

As such, I've personally benefited numerous times from diversity hiring programs.

If someone at any of my previous employers had written an internal memo criticizing the respective company's diversity program (ie the funnel through which I was hired), I can't imagine calling for their job, even if the way in which they stated that opinion was offensive to me.

I say this with the understanding that there's an obvious difference between choosing to join the military and being born as a woman or person of color.

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#875

Post by specto »

I am somewhat surprised that others are upset he was fired. Free speech doesn't always apply within a company context and speaking politically on either side is a bad idea. Not to mention, while he may have some points, he's approaching a people problem as a statistics problems. With deep rooted issues like this (that have lasted for 100s of years) you can't just pull out data that won't apply going forward if we actually try to make things better...

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#876

Post by red75prime »

raverbashing wrote: post #822
slackingoff2017 wrote: post #714

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You imply bias in the the hiring process is what is causing the gender imbalance in tech. Indicators such university enrollment in CS programs show that this is unlikely to be the case. If the author is wrong, that there definitely isn't some inherit genetic behavioral bias influencing job choice, than the bias is happening before students finish highschool. I'm a proponent for an "early bias" theory because of far l…

> You imply bias in the the hiring process is what is causing the gender imbalance in tech. Indicators such university enrollment in CS programs show that this is unlikely to be the case. Or it implies that the bias has a more profound origin than simply hiring practices (the funnel tapers earlier in the process)

But not as early as conception, that would be too early. /s /s

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#877

Post by scraft »

nyxtom wrote: post #387
jorgemf wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If gender-based diversity programs are responsible for qualified women getting jobs that they otherwise wouldn't have gotten due to bias, then the lack of that program means those women wouldn't have gotten those jobs. This is a double sword thing. With the program you might hire more qualified women, but also more less qualified women and you might prevent of hiring more qualified men. Because you have to hire wom…

This is actually one of the points made here: https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/NSF_Stemming%20the%20Tid... "Still getting asked if I can handle being in a mostly male work environment in interviews in 2009 - I’ve been an engineer for 9 years, obviously I can. I know when I’m asked that question, I HAVE NO CHANCE AT THE JOB. It is nice they brought me in for equal opportunity survey points but don’t waste my time i…

Hmm, when we made our first female hire (we are a computer games company), she was a graduate and I did point out that everyone else was male. We offered her the job. She accepted it. She mentioned whilst working she wished more girls worked here so she had someone to talk about girl related things with and go out shopping at lunchtime (it turned out one of the males here knew about shellac nails after this comment and they had a chat about it). Ultimately she moved onto a bigger company a year or so later (the male/female balance wasn't given as a reason, the new job was something excited her a lot more).

I think saying 'can you HANDLE being in a mostly male work environment' is not the right wording. But the decision I took to let a potential candidate know they would be working in an otherwise male only office, I would take again in the same circumstance - it WAS something she was interested to know and WAS something that also came up when she started the job.

I can't speak on behalf of any other women, or scenario in the world, the above is the account of what happened to us. We typically get at least 10X more male candidates to female, and we employ and the same ratio. For about half of the jobs we recruit for, the personal doing the interviewing is female.

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#878

Post by idibidiart »

It's not women vs men. It's the feminine and the masculine working together in harmony. We all have a bit of both, unless we're all 100% masculine or 100% feminine, which is not true of my generation or anyone I would actually be able to work with.

It should start with the rise of the feminine in our societal structures to balance the masculine, so that as a society we would balance and harmonize those two archetypes, not cast them as the extremes that they're today. In other words, little girls should not be marketed pink princess dresses while boys get marketed Bob The Builder outfits and tool belts. Gender identity and association starts at an early age and the society we live in promotes the masculine archetype to boys and the feminine archetype to girls. It's wrong. We should be promoting the same balanced masculine/feminine type to both girls and boys. Only then will we see an elimination of gender bias.

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#879

Post by golemotron »

bjourne wrote: post #812
kromem wrote: post #603

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we're so concerned with the advantages of wealth and education inequality, why are we still using race (a bad proxy, given the spread and distribution around the averages - the whole point of the original document) as the determining factor instead of just asking for tax returns/education records for special programs? And regarding gender - let's consider the example of salary negotiation. Now, if you research, yo…

> And regarding gender - let's consider the example of salary negotiation. Now, if you research, you'll see that statistically women are less likely to negotiate as high a salary as men. It would make sense, given that research, to create a women-only program for teaching salary negotiation skills, right? No. It would make sense to implement other means of deciding fair compensation rather than through employer-emplo…

> Because it is not fair that compensation should be based on negotiation skills.

It is more fair. Employees are at a disadvantage relative to employers when they can't negotiate.

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#880

Post by andreasgonewild »

I read the whole thing out of curiosity since I'm often a target for witch-hunts myself after expressing unrelated unpopular views. I can't really see any reasons for being fired in the memo, except for the shame-and-punish-culture around these issues that he mentions. Not that I agree with everything, empathy is essential and a big part of adjusting towards a more humane and feminine world. But then he gets that part spot on, that becoming more feminine as a whole is a superior strategy to fitting more women inside a masculine framework by discrimination. The society we build has to provide space for all of us as individuals, not by making us all the same. You can't fix inequality by discrimination, why is this so difficult to understand?
Post reply on HN